John Grogan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but how would she reply to the Association of Colleges and, indeed, to my constituent, Mr. Colin Ratcliffe, who attends a sculpture class at York college? They both welcome the emphasis on basic skills, but are concerned that fee rises for non-examined adult education courses might undermine the principle of lifelong learning, particularly among less-well-off pensioners and adults.

Ruth Kelly: I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, but he was clearly not listening to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), in which I made it clear that I recognise the significant contribution that adult education provides and that we should acknowledge its value for its own sake as well as for helping people to get or progress their jobs, which is another important aspect of adult education. That is why we have agreed indicative budgets with the Learning and Skills Council that maintain the level of public funding for adult education, secured through local education authorities. At the moment, many FE colleges do not raise as much as they could from those who are able to contribute towards the cost of their learning and it is for FE colleges to decide their own charging structure. As I have told the House, we will safeguard the central Government funding for adult education.

Barry Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it should be our ambition to be as generous with adult education as we are with higher education? Is she aware that many students are coming into higher education a year early? If they enter in September 2006, their financial package of bursaries and grants—with parents paying nothing and nothing to pay back until the students are earning £15,000—offer them a much better deal. Should we not tell the world about that and point out that the Liberal Democrat voices are misleading?

Michael Fabricant: I thank the Minister for her answer. Does she understand that many parents, including those of children at Queen's Croft special needs school in Litchfield and throughout Staffordshire and the rest of the country, believe that mainstream schools are not necessarily the best solution for their children? They feel that their children might be bullied, embarrassed and would not do as well or thrive as they do in special needs schools. Because of that, will she please reverse the policy that her Government implemented in 2001 and leave the choice of which school children go to to the parents and not to the Government?

Margaret Hodge: I entirely endorse my hon. Friend's words and congratulate all those in Burnley who are using the resources being made available to them for the benefit of Burnley families and Burnley children. A number of the special schools that are closing will reorganise themselves into new schools with up-to-date, 21st century facilities to provide individualised learning that is particularly appropriate for children with special educational needs.

Margaret Hodge: I completely understand the issues that have been raised. I, too, have faced a reorganisation of special schools in my constituency and change is undoubtedly difficult for everybody, but especially for the parents and children who are currently in those schools. I hope that her local authority will handle that change sensitively, but I am sure that when the new schools are built and the new facilities available, the opportunities for all children in that area, including those who need or want to attend a special school, will be enhanced. The work that can take place between the special school and the mainstream school will add value to the experience of every child involved.

Margaret Hodge: For our part, we believe in providing real choice, both for children and for their parents. An ideological obsession, either pro-closure or anti-closure, inhibits that choice for every individual child and family. I share some of the views expressed by the hon. Lady, but I cannot accept from her the claim that she would give freedom to local authorities and local communities but would also impose a ban on any closure of a special school, whether it had unfilled places, or was needed or wanted locally. I cannot understand her idea that parents would have the freedom to choose if she would ensure that only £5,500 would be available for each child. How can she explain—

Derek Twigg: Obviously, to an extent, we have to be prescriptive in terms of the numeracy hour, but I want to reiterate that we have seen a 12 percentage point rise in since 1997, and that Ofsted says that the teaching and learning of mathematics continues to be a strength in our primary schools.

Lorna Fitzsimons: Is it not the case that people have been confused for years because of the morass of vocational qualifications and that that has led to their devaluation in the marketplace as seen by parents, users and employers? Addressing that is thus the key to success in achieving parity of esteem. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that a key factor is the fact that places such as Rochdale are offering the education maintenance allowance for the first time, which means that it now has the highest staying-on rate in its history and the biggest take-up of EMA in the north-west? Will the Secretary of State give us more information about the eight pilots that are to be rolled out throughout the country, which were announced by our right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the Budget, that will give £75 to people who have not stayed on in education or training in order to encourage them to do such education or training? To my mind, and certainly to that of my constituents, that will be of huge benefit when trying to ratchet up skills, as well as educational attainment.

Kim Howells: My right hon. Friend has received a small number of representations, including one from my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen), appealing against the removal of individual teachers from the repayment of teachers' loans scheme as a result of failure to complete the annual review process.

Colin Challen: May I respectfully remind my hon. Friend of the correspondence that I entered into last month about the case of my constituent, Emma Seymour, who did not return her form in time, because it was sent to the wrong address? She claims that she told the Student Loans Company that she had informed it of her change of address, but it did not have any proof. It is difficult to prove that one has informed someone of a change of address. Does my hon. Friend agree that the rules are designed to penalise fraud, and are not meant to penalise bona fide hard-working student teachers? Will he agree to meet me to discuss the case to see whether there is a way through?

Anne McIntosh: When I visit schools in my Vale of York constituency head teachers tell me that they are deeply concerned that the amount of core funding relating to the employment, recruitment and retention of teachers has gone down under the Government. There are more grants than core funding, which does not provide the security that head teachers would like. What is the Minister doing about that?

Educational Funding (Shire Counties)

Peter Luff: What assessment she has made of the relative needs of English shire counties for educational funding.

Harriet Harman: I shall write to the hon. Lady very shortly about the outstanding issues from last week's debate; in fact, I shall try to do so before the House rises for the Easter recess. The hon. Lady is absolutely right; it is important not only that antisocial behaviour orders are made in appropriate cases, but that they are enforced. If people think that no action will follow when such an order is breached, there will simply be no currency or value in it. It is important that breaches should be reported to the local authorities and the police, who should work together, as they do in North Yorkshire, to ensure that such orders are made in appropriate cases and that they are taken seriously.

Bob Spink: What recent representations she has received on publishing the Attorney- General's advice on the Iraq war.

Attorney-General (Advice on Iraq)

Jack Straw: Let me deal with the hon. Gentleman's points in turn. First, on why we refused to publish those two sentences, I have set out the reasons. The issue for the whole House, and not least the shadow Attorney-General, is whether he and his party are now moving from a clear position that Law Officers' advice should not be published to proposing that Law Officers' advice, and that which contributes to it, should be published.
	I draw the House's attention to the fact that when a similar issue arose, albeit in respect of a different subject—legal advice in respect of the ratification of the Maastricht treaty—the then Attorney-General set out clearly that he could not recall any occasion when the Law Officers' advice had been disclosed, and would not break precedent.
	When we discussed the issue of the Freedom of Information Bill in the House, the House as a whole was absolutely clear that legal advice, and the background to that legal advice, should not be disclosed for very good reasons. If the hon. Gentleman is now saying, on behalf of his party, that that should change, he had better say so; but the implications for good government are very grave indeed.
	The hon. Gentleman then made a wholly tendentious claim based on his reading of Ms Wilmshurst's letter. He said that it showed clearly that the Attorney-General had one view on 7 March and a different view later. He asked what change of law or fact had taken place. The letter showed nothing of the kind—but yes, there was a change of fact, which was before the House on 18 March. I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman, who voted for the resolution in favour of military action on 18 March, seems to have forgotten that.
	Throughout the period following the passage of resolution 1441, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I, every other member of this Government and, indeed, all the Governments who later formed the coalition were seeking to ensure that there was clear compliance by Saddam with the obligations imposed on him by resolution 1441 and the resolutions that preceded it. When it became clear that that was not the case, we worked night and day for a second resolution. We did not work night and day for a second resolution because it was required by the terms of resolution 1441: it was not. I can go into the negotiating history of resolution 1441 in very great detail. I can point out to the House that France proposed at one stage that there should indeed be a lock requiring a second resolution in resolution 1441, but backed off from that proposal. Everyone who knows the text of resolution 1441, and that of operative paragraphs 4, 12 and 13 in particular, will know that there was no requirement whatever for a second resolution. We sought a second resolution because we sought a consensus in the Security Council, and what changed between 7 and 17 March was this: it became very clear that that consensus was not possible.
	The hon. Gentleman's last point concerned the effect of refusing to disclose the Attorney-General's advice. The Attorney-General's advice was before the Butler inquiry. The Attorney-General gave advice to the Butler inquiry, and so, as I have said, did Ms Wilmshurst. That was the appropriate setting in which to examine the advice in detail. Lord Butler concluded that the Attorney-General had given clear and categorical advice to the Cabinet, and that in his judgment it was lawful under resolution 1441 to use force without a further United Nations Security Council resolution. That was the position after full examination, and that is the position now.

Robin Cook: I am sure that my right hon. Friend would wish to agree with me that Elizabeth Wilmshurst was a distinguished legal adviser who did very valuable work in the international criminal court. Would my right hon. Friend confirm that, unlike those on the Opposition Front Bench, she was always consistent in her view that invasion of Iraq would require a second resolution? Would he further confirm that the Attorney-General shared that opinion, an opinion that he no doubt held genuinely and independently, from September 2002 until March 2003, when he changed that opinion? May I put to my right hon. Friend, who is an experienced Member of the House, that perhaps the time has come for him to reflect on whether there is so much in the public domain that it would be better for the Government to let out the whole truth? The Government have published one opinion from the Attorney-General. Surely the less damaging course for the Government now is to publish both opinions and explain exactly what it was that persuaded the Attorney-General to change his opinion in-between.

Tony Blair: There certainly is a clear choice, not least on the economy, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned. I seem to remember that when he was a Minister in the last Conservative Government unemployment rose to 3 million, interest rates were at 10 per cent. for four years and there were two recessions during which people lost their jobs, their homes and their livelihoods. Yes, there is a clear choice between the right hon. and learned Gentleman's boom and bust and cuts in investment and our economic stability and investment in public services.
	I shall deal with one or two of the specific issues that the right hon. and learned Gentleman raised. On climate change, it is absolutely important to meet our Kyoto targets and we will. It is correct that there has been a rise in CO 2 emissions and one way of dealing with that is the climate change levy, which his party voted against. Carbon dioxide emissions have risen because of the strength of the economy but, overall, we shall meet our Kyoto targets in a way that will probably single us out from most other countries in the world.
	On the European Union and the China arms embargo, it is important in any discussion of the matter to recognise that that cannot be done without a proper code of conduct to govern any arms sales to China. It is a sensitive issue because of recent events and the European Union has made it clear that there cannot be a qualitative or quantitative increase in arms sales.
	On Sudan, we are pressing for UN Security Council measures. The main thing is to ensure that the African Union mission of peacekeepers is built up to its full strength. We can introduce arms sanctions against Sudan, but the only thing that will work is to have a proper peacekeeping force there which is properly able to enforce, as well as to keep peace. Until we do that, we will not bring any hope to that troubled part of Sudan. That is also one of the important aspects of the Commission for Africa. Africa needs its own proper peacekeeping and peace-enforcing contingent, which must be of sufficient strength that it can be sent to different parts of Africa and keep warring people apart so that conflicts can be resolved and peace kept. Until that happens, situations such as that in Sudan will continue.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about a failure of our policy over the past eight years. I remind him that when we came to office we were still living with the aftermath of the beef war, which probably stands out as the epitome of a failed European policy. All he ever did in Europe, and the only position he ever adopted that anyone remembers, was to stand out against the European social chapter, and against paid holidays and decent terms and conditions for British workers—[Interruption.] He may say that people can decide for themselves, but in 18 years of Government he never quite got round to doing it, did he?
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman raised other points, including the rebate which, incidentally, was not mentioned at the Council, at the dinner or during the conclusions the following day. It was mentioned by the French President, as it always is, but he always gets the same response from me: no. That will continue to happen.
	On the reform agenda, I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman listened to what I said. I am passionately in favour of the services directive and we must ensure that it is implemented. We have given nothing away. On the contrary, it will be debated through the legislative process. I agree that there is a big issue with the directive and the reform agenda and that there is a battle going on. There is also a battle over trade policy. What is the right thing to do? It is to get in there and ensure that we win the debates. What is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's alternative? It is to embark on a policy of renegotiating the fundamental existing terms of Britain's membership of the European Union. What will that do? I do not often agree with the spokesman of the UK Independence party but I agreed with him when he said:
	"The whole policy of renegotiation is, as far as the Tories are concerned, nothing more than self-delusion—and on the British public it's just a deception".
	Dominic Cummings, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's former director of strategy, said a few months ago:
	"the party"—
	the Conservative party—
	"is stuck on the question: 'what would you do if you can't get the new deal you want?  . . . The current situation of spasmodic lurches without a clear view  . . . is the worst of all worlds. It does not deal with UKIP, it does not change opinion, it does not improve the Conservative Party's reputation for seriousness."
	I could not have put it better myself.
	The Leader of the Opposition is saying that he will withdraw from the common agricultural policy, the social chapter, overseas aid, fisheries—

Tony Blair: It is in black and white. Let me tell him what his fisheries spokesman said on Monday. The Conservative party's shadow Minster for Europe, when asked what he would do about the control of fisheries, said, "Let's look at what Iceland has done?" and, further afield, "Let's look at what happens in the Falkland Islands?"

Peter Hain: Are any other hon. Members queuing up to admit to their positive role? [Interruption.] Ah, my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House was not on the Joint Committee. The issues are difficult, but the Bill is important, as the hon. Lady says. We want to get it through as quickly and consensually as possible.

Michael Fabricant: The Leader of the House was present when his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary answered a question asked by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short). He said to her that there had been opportunities to ask questions on the statement made by the Attorney-General, but as she sat down, she said that that did not happen, and that there was no opportunity to ask questions in Cabinet. The Leader of the House was present during that Cabinet meeting—so who was telling the truth and who was telling the lie?

Richard Allan: Many loyal and hard-working public servants in my Sheffield, Hallam constituency have written to me to express concern about possible changes to their pension schemes. They would expect a change of that nature that affects a large number of people and has significant impact on morale in the public services to be at the heart of the parliamentary agenda. However, if such matters are debated at all, it is done through statutory instruments. Can the Leader of the House ensure that when proposals are introduced to change public sector pension schemes they are given the due prominence in the business of the House that people would expect?

Harry Barnes: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the joint report on electoral registration published today by the Select Committees on Constitutional Affairs Committee and on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister? I doubt whether it would be fruitful to have a debate about electoral registration before 11 April—I noticed that my right hon. Friend did not mention 12 April or any subsequent dates when he announced the business—but after a general election, will he bear in mind the need to debate the matter fully, as both the Department for Constitutional Affairs and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister need to respond? As I will not be here to contribute, could special attention be given to the evidence that I produced for the Committees? It was almost entirely ignored, but it was clearly the most incisive stuff presented to them.

Andrew Miller: Further to the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), in the nine years in which I served on the Information Committee, all key changes to the provision of services for Members and the development of the network in the House became subjects for our reports, which were laid before the House. Has there been a change in that practice, and if not, can we insist that PCD do not go ahead with any procurement until such a report has been laid before the House?

Peter Hain: I would love to have the opportunity to watch Chelsea secure another fine victory over a leading European club, but whether that is possible depends on my right hon. and hon. Friends. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Whip is discouraging me, but I will talk to him with my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks). As for the UEFA attack, I would call it a full frontal assault on José Mourinho. I find it extraordinary. The football authorities ought to conduct themselves with a little more dignity in these matters. When I look at the politics around international football, the politics around Government seem positively sombre and boring by comparison.

Mark Tami: Last week the Upper Waiting Hall hosted an exhibition of manufacturing in north Wales in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane). I hosted an exhibition some weeks earlier highlighting the importance of the aerospace industry in north Wales. Both exhibitions showed the strength and growth of manufacturing in the area and, importantly, that industry was innovative and planning for the future. The challenge for us as politicians and Government is how we build on that success and ensure that business and industry are there for many years to come, and that   we attract new companies, particularly supply companies, to the area.
	Just over 20 years ago, my area suffered the largest job losses ever experienced at a single plant in a single day, when more than 8,000 people lost their jobs at Shotton steel works—an event we never want to experience again. But Shotton steel works, now Corus, has survived, and I am pleased to say that it is investing again in the future. I am particularly impressed with the development of Living Solutions, a modular construction that can provide housing units quickly and effectively. I know that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is considering that for public sector workers experiencing housing difficulties, especially in the south-east. Recent reports have highlighted the sub-standard accommodation that our armed forces are obliged to endure. I urge both my right hon. Friends, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence, to move the projects forward as quickly as possible.
	I am privileged to represent an area that includes the jewel of British manufacturing—the Airbus plant at Broughton. It is the global wing centre of excellence, which builds the wings for all Airbus aircraft, and it fulfils one of the stated aims of the UK to attract the most innovative, high-tech and valued added partsof industry. The Broughton site has almost 7,000 employees and supports 19,000 jobs through the Welsh supply chain and in the local economy from induced employment.
	Recent attention has understandably focused on the launch of the A380, the largest passenger airliner in the world. The first flight is expected in April this year, and the first commercial flight will be to Singapore from Heathrow. Special thanks are due to BAA for the work that it has done to adapt Heathrow airport for this new large aircraft.
	The positive economic impact that the project has had on the UK economy is to be commended. Work valued at £7.5 billion has already been placed in the UK, and over the life of the programme that is set to double, to well in excess of £15 billion. In addition, the Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engines are set to generate work to the value of £11 billion over the life of the programme. More than 400 companies throughout the UK are contributing to the A380 programme, and the entire project is estimated to have created 84,000 jobs, direct and indirect.
	The long-term outlook for Airbus is positive, as products last for over 40 years on average, which is good for job security. The company contributes more than £1 billion per annum to the UK trade balance each year, and with the A380 that is set to rise to more than £1.5 billion. Airbus UK has Investors in People status and is committed to developing a well trained and supported work force. The training programmes that it offers include adult skills training initiatives, young people development, and employee training and development, and the company has training partnerships at its sites.
	With around 500 apprentices overall at Airbus UK, the Broughton site is believed to have the largest apprentice training programme at one site in the UK, with nearly 400 apprentices in training and annual intakes of up to 100 people. In addition, a direct entry graduate scheme is in operation and around 100 DEGs are undergoing training and development across the two sites. All this has been possible thanks to the positive contribution of the work force and their trade union representatives. They have responded to the new challenges and enhanced the partnership approach. I take this opportunity to pay particular tribute to Robert Dowie and the other convenors and shop stewards at the site.
	It is vital that the UK, and especially Wales, continue to invest in the future. The A380 was a watershed. It has been said that it is second only to the space shuttle in terms of the new technology and engineering which are included in the product. It is certainly one of the most ambitious aerospace projects in recent years. Airbus is now considering investments for its newest product, the A350. Decisions on work-sharing activities and locations for this commercial aircraft for years to come will be taken in the near future.
	It is well known that other Airbus countries—Germany and Spain—are keen to see this quality work brought to their sites. Brian Fleet, plant director at Broughton, is leading a project team putting together its business case to Airbus, and it is clearly vital that the UK provide support for that. It is worth remembering the statement made by the Chancellor during the Budget address last week, when he said:
	"The key to a sustained improvement in manufacturing is the rising level of business investment"—[Official Report, 16 March 2005; Vol. 432, c. 257.]
	There can be no better example than the Airbus facility at Broughton.
	EU/US trade discussions about large civil aircraft put a particular complexion on the issue. I do not propose to go into the intricacies of that debate, which is being led by the European Commission on behalf of the member states. I wish Peter Mandelson all the best in these difficult and complex discussions. The most important point in the debate is that European support not given up as a result of US sabre rattling. Repayable launch investment has been a very effective mechanism for supporting Welsh jobs and a good investment for the British taxpayer. The money has been repaid with interest, and royalty payments are made on every aircraft that is sold.
	It is well known that Boeing has received huge support through tax breaks from Washington state. NASA has funded huge amounts of technology and research, the results of which have been passed over tothe Boeing engineers. Recently, the Japanese Government provided launch aid for the latest product, the 7E7. The Americans just do not like competition, especially when that competition offers a better product to the customer. Is it any wonder that it is now, when they have fully funded the 7E7 research, that they cry foul? As Corporal Jones in "Dad's Army" would say, "they don't like it up 'em".
	Airbus UK has the leading role globally in wing design, technology and manufacturing, but the current leadership is based on "metallic" wing solutions. The future for Airbus and for all aircraft manufacturers is in composites. They have been used for many years in items such as tennis rackets and for marine technology. Their use is predicted to grow rapidly in the coming years in many engineering applications across a wide variety of industries. The weight saving made possible by the use of composites gives major benefits in aircraft design and helps to reduce environmental impact by increasing efficiency through lower fuel usage and the ability to fly further, or to carry a greater payload for the same amount of fuel.
	The situation faced by Airbus UK is that capabilities in composite design and technology have been built up over the years by the French and German sites, mainly because composites are used in other parts of the aircraft structure. I am pleased to say that this Labour Government are well aware of the importance of composite technology, and that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and the Regions opened an advanced materials research centre at Airbus in Bristol just last month. Government investment of £5 million was provided for that regional centre, and it is worth noting that an engineering centre for manufacturing and materials was opened in 2003 in Port Talbot. That was one of the first parts of the national composite network established by the Government.
	The A350 will be the first Airbus civil product with the wing primary structure made largely from composite materials. In order for Airbus UK to win that vital wing business, there will need to be considerable investment in new engineering and manufacturing facilities, in work force training and in composite processes.
	That is why UK repayable launch investment is so important and will play a key role in securing the requisite UK work share in that vital project. I am sure that our European partners will deliver that support. We need to show the same level of commitment.
	The Government have demonstrated their support for Airbus in the past. I urge that we do so again. It would help to secure the future for many tens of thousands of British workers, providing quality and secure employment not just for today but for many years to come.

Teddy Taylor: As the indications are that we are likely to have an election soon, I thought that there would be no harm in using the Easter Adjournment debate to place on record a number of issues that we should pay attention to in the new Parliament and perhaps in the forthcoming election.
	Five things concern me and I hope that people will think seriously about them. The first and most obvious one concerns where I used to come from, Scotland, where we have the problem of devolution. We hardly ever talk about devolution but it has a horrendous cost for Scotland, Wales and London. The least we should do, bearing in mind the fact that there has been a huge change of opinion on devolution since it was introduced, is to give the people of Scotland, Wales and London the opportunity to say whether they wish their devolved Parliaments and Assemblies to continue.
	I visit Wales, which is a lovely place. I also visit Scotland a great deal. I am certainly of the opinion that there has been a huge change of opinion. People feel that they have far too many politicians, that it is costing far too much and that something should be done. What worries me as we face the election is that I cannot identify a single party that says that the people of Scotland, Wales and London should have the opportunity to say whether they wish their devolved government to continue. We should give them such a chance, and I hope that whoever wins the election will make that clear.
	The second problem is that of asylum seekers. It is a frightening problem. In some areas, because people have the impression, perhaps wrongly, that the Government have lost control of the asylum seeker problem, we find that race relations are deteriorating, which is bad for communities and for the country as a whole. I am glad to say that, in Southend, where I reside, we have good community relations, but in other parts of the country people feel that things are going wrong and that something should be done. The greatest danger of all is if the parties start shouting at each other about who is to blame for the problem. We should be looking at the real problem and seeing what can be done.
	The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, who is one of the most agreeable politicians I have come across, answered a question just last week that I put to him, asking how many people were told last year that they had to leave the country. The answer was 64,000. I then asked him how many had left and the answer as 4,000. That is not because of the inefficiency or incapacity of the Government. It is simply because of the basic problem that asylum seekers who come here have a habit of destroying their passports and all their papers. So when the Government say that they have to go back to their own country, their own country says that it does not want them because they do not have any papers or any proof of who they are.
	I know that those figures are exact, because I was given them by the Minister. I have been told by others, although it has not been confirmed, that there are actually 250,000 people in Britain today who have no right to remain here and who should be back in their own countries. We certainly should show the utmost appreciation and help to people who are being persecuted, but when we have that massive number of people and nothing can apparently be done because of the problem of the absence of papers, we should face up to that. The most obvious thing is to have some initiative, taken perhaps by the United Nations, so that when someone comes to our country from another country claiming asylum, there is a document that will enable them to be sent back if the Government decide that they should be.
	If we do not face up to that, we will have the problem of a large number of people in this country who no longer have the right to benefits and who will look to other places to get money. It will not be good for anything, and I hope that the issue will be faced up to no matter who wins the election.
	The third problem that we have to face up to is that of the European Union. It has haunted me for 25 of the 40 years that I have been here. What worries me immensely is the way in which democracy is being fundamentally undermined because of our membership of the European Union. When I came here, the MPs or the Lords decided all the taxes we had. Basically, the European Union is taking more and more power and the people's views are utterly irrelevant.
	We sometimes forget that a good democracy depends on the people having a view and being able to express anopinion. For example, when a Conservative Government brought in a poll tax that people did not like, they were able to reject the Government and to get that changed. The people had power, but the number of people taking part in elections now is simply fading away, because a lot of them feel that there is little point in voting.
	I had the pleasure of speaking to a lovely group of school children from London who were being shown around here. There were 70 of them aged 17. They were delightful. I talked to them about the political system and how it worked here. Then we talked about politics. It was quite disturbing. Seven of them told me that they thought we had a dreadful Government. They thought that the Prime Minister was a rascal, that the war in Iraq was shameful and that public services had gone to pot. That rather cheered me up as a Conservative. Then they talked about the Conservatives. They did not say a nasty thing about them. There was no capitalist pig stuff or anything like that. They just thought that they were totally irrelevant and they had no views on them at all. They then talked about Liberal Democrats. The only opinion expressed was that they were slightly nicer people but they had no policies.
	I then asked those youngsters, "How are you going to vote at the next election? You will have to decide if democracy is going to continue." We had a poll. I asked how many were going to vote Labour and the answer was none; how many were going to vote Conservative and the answer was none; how many were going to vote Lib Dem and the answer was one out of 70. Although that may appear to be a victory to some degree for the Liberal Democrats, what should worry us is the number of young people who are simply switching off.
	I went to the university of Aberdeen to speak to a meeting of 300 young people. It was beautiful and very exciting for me but what appalled me was that, when I asked, "How many of you are involved in politics?" the answer was: one out of 300. When I was at university, everyone was involved in a party or movement of some sort. The fact is that young people are switching off and the number of people voting is going down.
	Why is that happening? It is happening because people can no longer express an opinion about the things that they care about. Take a basic issue of the old days like capital punishment or corporal punishment. We can no longer determine that because of the European convention. The treaty will confirm that if it comes in. The same applies even to things such as the export of live cattle. A group of five people recently called at my surgery, including a clergyman who brought a dog with him to show that he was fond of animals. The group asked me whether I would vote against the export of live cattle. I had to say that I was sorry, but there was nothing we could do about that. They asked whether they could go to their European MP. I told them not to waste their time, because if the European Parliament closed its doors tomorrow, nobody would notice apart from the taxi drivers of Strasbourg. They then asked me where they could go.
	Similarly, some of my pensioner constituents asked me whether it was really true that the Government had been told that we had to pay the heating allowance to people in the overseas territories of Europe. I had to explain that, yes, we had to pay it to people living in Guadeloupe, Martinique or the Azores, where there is sunshine all the time, but that people living in Iceland or northern Canada, where it is cold, do not get it. They asked, "Why don't you do something about that as an MP?" The answer, of course, is that we have no power at all over such matters.
	Some time ago, we had a debate about the age of homosexual consent—a big, vital issue—but it was pointless, because the European Court of Justice had decided on the matter 18 months before. There is a basic problem in Europe because of the destruction of democracy. The big problem ahead, which I hope people will think about and which has nothing to do with party politics, is what is happening to Europe's population. The United Nations has calculated that if trends do not change, the number of people living in Europe in 50 years' time will have declined by 100 million because of the way in which population numbers are going. We see that in Scotland more readily than elsewhere, and we see it throughout Europe. We will have a shrinking tax base, more demand for health care and pensions, lower inward investment and, frankly, heightening social tensions, given the number of people coming into these countries. It is a frightening situation and we have to ask whether Europe has the ability, without democracy, to resolve the problem.
	In Southend-on-Sea, we worry about a fourth issue—the Government's ability to ensure that things done by organisations can be questioned. We have had a bit of a nightmare over the rates issue. In Southend, there was a relatively low increase—although it was an increase—of 4 per cent., but unfortunately we have had to cut back on public services because it has been calculated that the population has reduced from 180,000 to 162,000. However, as someone who lives in Southend, I can say that there has been no reduction in our population at all. The numbers attending local general practitioners' surgeries have increased, the number of houses has increased and our schools are busier than ever; and we think that the calculation is completely wrong. But what can we do about the situation? Home Office Ministers say, "It's nothing to do with us". Such issues must be resolved; if we cannot sort out problems, we will not sort out anything at all.
	My last point concerns the Iraq war. I have often been in a minority in the House of Commons, unfortunately at times, although I find that opinions seem to change in my direction. I was one of those who opposed the Iraq war because I thought it pure hypocrisy on the part of the Americans, who, having supported Saddam Hussein and given him all the weapons of mass destruction for the invasion of Iran, then turned against him. The Government now have a terrible problem, although I do not mean to be unkind, as it will apply to all Governments in future. The statement that we heard today concerning the lady who resigned from a Government post and whose letter was not published suggests that faith in the Government is declining.
	I have three children, one of whom is in the Army and was out in Iraq. I can tell the House that it is frightening for any parent to be in that position. I would say this to the Government: in this situation, where lives are being lost in the services, and Americans and the Iraqis themselves are suffering in huge numbers, the least that they could do is to explain the whole situation to the public and tell them the whole truth. Frankly, it is not enough for us to shout across the Chamber at each other about who is to blame; particularly when lives are at stake, we should do all that we can to tell the truth.
	The crucial issue is what will happen in the future. I believe that in Iraq we have created an horrendous mess that will be difficult to resolve. Having been misled on Iraq, I hope that the Government will not make the same mistake on Iran, which is a country with many positive aspects that we should face up to.
	Madam Deputy Speaker, you were kind to call me early in the debate; I appreciate that very much. I hope that Members of the House will think about the points that I have made; it is just possible that I might be right.

Harry Barnes: In response to the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor), I agree that young people are switched off by party politics, but they often have a great interest in politics in a wider sense. They are very much involved in a big campaign that is taking place at the moment—Make Poverty History. They have great concern about environmental matters, the quality of life generally, and issues of war such as the invasion of Iraq, which the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East mentioned. We need to realise that it is not the case that there is nothing out there as far as younger generations are concerned—there is a great deal, but politicians need to focus on making things seem relevant to them. I want to speak about young people, but in different sense from their involvement in party politics.
	When parents have their lives shattered by the actions or failures of others in relation to their children, they often experience a deep-seated need for a form of official recognition of their plight. When that is not forthcoming, the deep psychological scars that they have experienced can never be fully lifted from their lives. I shall give three examples of what I mean.
	First, like many other hon. Members, I have a constituent whose adult son was killed by a reckless driver, but the courts did not deliver a significant decision against the culprits. My constituent now feels that his son's life was undervalued. I knew the son and was dealing with a Child Support Agency case on his behalf.
	Secondly, I have parents in my constituency who, years after suffering the trauma of their child's death in hospital, discovered that Sheffield children's hospital held a wide range of slides and blocks of their late child, with other body parts having been disposed of following a coroner's post-mortem. Yet the official recognition that eventually emerges in hospital post-mortem cases has not emerged in their child's case, and they still therefore feel aggrieved. The mother once said to me that after her child's death she had the comfort of knowing that no one could take away her memories of him, but that is exactly what the body part revelations did to her.
	The third case is the one on which I wish to concentrate—it is that of Christopher Butcher from Dronfield in my constituency, where I also live. Christopher is much the same age as my own son—approaching 37. In normal circumstances, they would have known each other, attending the same classes in the same school, but Christopher suffers profound disabilities and irreversible brain damage. Although he obtains day care from the social services of Derbyshire county council, his parents look after him, and as they become older the task becomes greater and they worry about his future. They have compelling reasons to believe that his condition was caused by the whooping cough vaccine—an issue to which they were alerted by publicity in 1977—when Christopher was nine years old.
	I have been involved with Christopher's case throughout my entire parliamentary career of 18 years. Indeed, my predecessor, the late Ray Ellis, also dealt with it. I first met Mr. and Mrs. Butcher shortly after I first arrived here in 1987. I cannot use this Adjournment debate to help to open a door to obtain official recognition of the reasons why Christopher was robbed of his normal life, for each door has long since been firmly closed, although I, and especially Mrs. Butcher, kept trying to prise those doors open. All that I can now do, in what is probably my final Commons speech before retirement, is to put a few words on the record so that at least Mr. and Mrs. Butcher can feel that Parliament has heard something of their case.
	Mr. and Mrs. Butcher have tried numerous avenues, including the family practitioner committee, numerous Ministers in Conservative and Labour Administrations, solicitors, the Association of Parents of Vaccine Damaged Children, the vaccine damage tribunal and the Solicitors Complaints Bureau—the latter because one of their solicitors had links with the consultant with whom they were in dispute. Their efforts always fell foul of a series of standard barriers. First, too much time was said to have elapsed since Christopher was given the vaccine in 1968. Secondly, the balance of arguments was said to go against them. Thirdly, new evidence was insisted on, but when it was provided, in what we called a leaked letter, it was dismissed for the balance-of-argument reason again.
	I always thought that, in reality, the balance told in favour of Mr. and Mrs. Butcher's case. The timing of the vaccination shortly preceded the onset of brain damage. The leaked letter that I mentioned showed medical evidence that the probability was that an error had been made in Christopher's hospital treatment, while the solicitor, who had links with Christopher's consultant, failed to advise Mr. and Mrs. Butcher of a closing date for applications to the vaccine damage tribunal.
	In 2002, Mrs. Butcher wrote a letter to the Whitby Gazette about the whooping cough vaccine. She asked whether people were aware
	"that in 1968 two batches (3741 and 3732), each batch containing an estimated 60,000 individual doses, never passed key toxicity tests. One batch was 14 times more potent than the British standard doses, the other batch 16 times more potent. A further 14 batches were not tested at all and some experts now believe these batches could be the reason for a massive rise in reported adverse reaction to whooping cough vaccine."
	Mrs. Butcher's strongest point is that, as a baby, Christopher was in hospital with meningitis and made a good recovery. However, he was then immunised despite the fact that Department of Health guidelines, which she did not know about at the time, said that that should not happen in such cases. I quote from a letter that she wrote to me on 28 June 2000:
	"Clear contra indications make this the worst type of vaccine damage because it could and should have been avoided. These contra indications set by the Department of Health came into being in 1956 to safeguard children like Christopher who suffered a serious neurological illness to protect them against vaccination. These safeguards were issued to all prescribing GPs in 1957. As you are aware, Christopher made a full and complete recovery from this illness"
	and was then given the vaccination.
	My files on the case are extensive, and in the time available to me today I have been able to give only a flavour of the matters involved. I just hope that Mr. and Mrs. Butcher will feel that a few minutes in the Commons, where they have heard about their son's plight and their grievances, provide something for them, and that they will recognise that their MP, having whittled away at aspects of their case over the years, felt it important enough to give it his final parliamentary spot for a full speech.

Paul Tyler: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), who has demonstrated yet again, after a distinguished parliamentary career, that speaking up for those who cannot speak for themselves is a very important role for every Member of this House. I am grateful to him for how he presented the case, and I have a similar task.
	Following previous recess debates, the Deputy Leader of the House has been meticulous in obtaining answers to the questions that we have raised, even if some of those answers have been far from illuminating. He may recall that I have raised on several occasions the alarming case of Sergeant Steven Roberts, the first British casualty in the Iraq invasion, who came from Wadebridge in my constituency.
	Today happens to be exactly the second anniversary of his avoidable, unnecessary and truly tragic death. Hon. Members may remember that Steve died because he had to give back his enhanced combat body armour—which, it is now accepted, would have saved his life—due to the Ministry of Defence's failure to ensure sufficient supply of that essential protection. All the evidence is that if he had been wearing the ECBA, he would still be alive today.
	As I pointed out as long ago as the recess debate before Christmas in 2003—on 18 December 2003, at column 1753—the National Audit Office reported that no fewer than 200,000 sets of vital equipment had been "lost" by the MOD in the previous few years, and nothing had been done to remedy the discrepancy in the long months of preparation leading up to the Iraq war. I note in passing that today's report from the Select Committee on Defence points to yet more discrepancies and inadequacies in the preparations made by the Ministry of Defence both before and since the invasion.
	Sergeant Roberts's family were told at an early stage that the fatal shot might well have come from a colleague's weapon—a sad case of so-called friendly fire. However, the fact that it was fatal was due entirely to the lack of effective protection.
	On 19 January 2004—14 months ago—I took Steve's widow Samantha, his mother and his brother to meet the Secretary of State. We were given an explicit promise that the investigation would be completed as soon as possible, that he would meet us again when it was, and that the MOD would not dodge its responsibilities. He even accepted that he and the Ministry would face up to the consequences of the logistics failure.
	Some 14 months later, that has not happened. Instead, there have been constant attempts to pass the buck and shift the blame. Talk of courts martial and of the Metropolitan police examining the case for a prosecution of the unfortunate other members of Sergeant Roberts's unit all have the unpleasant stench of a search for scapegoats. Meanwhile, his widow Samantha Roberts and her solicitor await confirmation of the previous informal hints of accepted liability.
	All Members will recognise that I have a duty to demand a proper explanation from Defence Ministers to establish what is going on. The family have surely waited far too long for a full explanation and for justice. I know that they share my frustration that lessons still seem not to have been learned from the episode. We cannot even be sure that such an avoidable tragedy will not be repeated.
	As it happens, I have also been involved as a Member in a number of exercises to try to support and assist service families. There are many in the south-west, but obviously other Members here will represent them, too. Successive Governments have not treated service families with the respect and consideration that they should have. For example, ever since the first Gulf war, there have been all too many examples of veterans whose health has been devastated by their service. My particular interest in the chronic long-term effects of exposure to organophosphate pesticides has led me to work for some years with the Royal British Legion to seek a fully independent and expert investigation. Whether the impact was simply from OP poisons, the combined effect with the cocktail of inoculations, or some other exposures, many troops—hundreds and possibly thousands—were sent to one of the most dangerous war zones on our behalf and placed at extra risk to their health by the MOD. Some have died, and many others have had their lives and livelihoods ruined as a result.
	Surely that is no way to encourage recruitment to and retention in the armed forces. Is it any wonder that the armed services are having such difficulty in that respect? As we all know, it is service families who often provide new recruits, and the way in which they have been treated has done great harm to our national interest.
	As it happens, we in the Gulf war group in the Royal British Legion eventually succeeded, despite rather than because of ministerial interest, in securing an independent inquiry into Gulf war illnesses, headed by Lord Lloyd. I have challenged the Prime Minister to permit Ministers and civil servants to give evidence to that inquiry, but without success. Although, clearly, its robust conclusions give victims at long last some sense that their fate and needs are being recognised, that is no thanks to the Ministry of Defence.
	That group, of course, is a cross-party group, and from my experience in the House, I believe that many of us can perform an important function through cross-party work on such issues. My most constructive and rewarding preoccupations have been on a cross-party basis, and I like to think that such activity has been even more important than my contribution as a Front-Bench representative of my party and even as my party's Chief Whip. I am proudest, however, of my occasional role as a facilitator and catalyst for such cross-party initiatives. I hope that the House will forgive me if I comment briefly on the way in which we operate in that respect, as I suspect that, like other Members today, this speech will be my swansong.
	In addition to the all-party organophosphates group that I formed and have chaired since 1992, which has made some progress, I have been a humble contributor to the Parliament First group, led by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), which has done important work in identifying the way in which Parliament can improve its scrutiny of the Executive. I have worked in the Modernisation Committee, which has made improvements, on a cross-party basis, to the way in which the House operates. I am also currently engaged in the Hansard Society commission, Parliament in the Public Eye, which is chaired by the noble Lord Puttnam. I hope that that will report soon after the election with helpful, positive and constructive suggestions as to the way in which Parliament can restore its authority and reputation.
	As Members might know, I recently brought together a cross-party team of experienced parliamentarians, such as the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) and the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright), to kick start again the movement towards reform of the other end of the building, which I believe to be both urgent and extremely necessary if Parliament is to re-establish its authority collectively.
	I am devoted to this place and what it represents. I am even more convinced than when I returned here, however, that we must deal with the essentially wasteful, trivialising and disenchanting nature of a great deal of the confrontational exchanges here. The ritual of mock mediaeval jousting in a mock mediaeval palace should be put into the dustbin of history.
	The main change in Parliament between my first brief appearance in 1974 and my return in 1992 was the emergence and evolution of Select Committees. The contrast between the proceedings in this Chamber and in the replica line-up in Standing Committees on Bills, and the more consensual work in which we are all involved, across parties, in the best Select Committees, is marked. Select Committees provide genuine and effective accountability. Any Member who might have doubts about that should read the annual report of theLiaison Committee, which shows that Select Committees are ensuring effective accountability and making sure that the Government are scrutinised effectively.
	Bill Committees, however, are now certainly the weakest link in the whole process of legislative scrutiny. They cannot remain unreformed for much longer if we are to produce better legislation and enhance the reputation of Parliament. I spent this morning in the Inquiries Bill Committee, on which a Government Member sits who also happened to be a member of the Select Committee that has been considering those issues. The cross-fertilisation of such careful scrutiny does not come across into the consideration of legislation, however, which is surely a major weakness in the way in which the House operates.
	Let us also contrast the absurd music hall performances at noon every Wednesday with the real interrogation of the Prime Minister in Portcullis House twice a year. That truly provides more light than heat, and shows Parliament operating more effectively. I give full credit to the former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Livingston, for persuading the Prime Minister to submit himself to those two-and-a-half hours of solo investigation, and to the Prime Minister for being persuaded. I suspect that any future Prime Minister who sought to step back from that would be held to ridicule.
	I am also proud of my small role in the introduction of Westminster Hall sittings, which have enabled Back-Bench Members of all parties, and perhaps Government Back Benchers especially, to probe and question without the artificial us-versus-them bias that we enjoy across this divide. The shape of the room, as with Select Committees, reflects the multi-party, pluralist character of our Parliament, at long last catching up with the end of the two-party system in the country at large.
	I am delighted, too, by the progress—still limited but useful—in improving access by the electorate to the decision-making process here. I do not mean the expensive, in my view, and certainly long-term development of a visitor centre, but the two-way, interactive electronic engagement that is now possible between our work and the workoutside. The Modernisation Committee report, "Connecting Parliament with the Public", has some useful contributions to make to the process, and I hope that the necessary resources will be provided in the new Parliament.
	I leave the House with mixed feelings—with some achievements, I hope, but much unfinished business. Having been heavily involved in every election since 1964, I will no doubt have terrible withdrawal symptoms. Indeed, I may need some clinical treatment to help me to deal with the political addiction. On that cheerful note, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish you, and all my colleagues—in all parts of the House—a very happy Easter and very best wishes for whatever lies in store for them in the next few weeks.

David Atkinson: In addition to following my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), it is a real pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor), and perhaps to precede my   hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), should he catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Coming from Southend myself, I once had my eye on both their seats. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst). He may recall that he was the chairman of Southend's Young Socialists when I was the chairman of Southend's Young Conservatives. I wholeheartedly endorse the tribute that he paid to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East.
	As this is likely to be my last speech to the House, I want to refer to one of the principal interests that I have pursued since my election here in 1977, in addition, of course, to my constituency interests. As a student, I had hitchhiked to the Soviet Union, where I saw at first hand its appalling denial of human rights. A few years later, I saw hundreds of demonstrators in support of the Prague spring being shot in Wenceslas square.
	The opportunity to do something came shortly after my election here, when Margaret Thatcher appointed me to the British delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. As well as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East, I note that in their places are the hon. Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths), the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis) and the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), all of whom are on the current delegation. Incidentally, West Ham was the first seat that I fought, and it was also the first seat that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West fought. In addition, you yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have been a valued member of our delegation in the past.
	My membership of our delegation enabled me to produce several reports exposing the human rights situation in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. When those countries became independent and free, I had the good fortune to be the chairman of the committee responsible for their accession to the Council of Europe. But my principal preoccupation has been as the rapporteur since 1989, first for the Soviet Union and subsequently for the Russian Federation, and at next month's part-session in Strasbourg the Assembly must decide whether my work should cease because Russia has honoured its commitments and has now reached acceptable standards of democracy, human rights and the rule of law.
	I am under considerable pressure from our Russian colleagues to recommend that Russia should no longer be subjected to the humiliation of such detailed scrutiny, or "outside interference" as the ultra-nationalists describe it. I am told that just as—as I explained to the House in my Adjournment debate on 10 January 1996—I had recommended that Russia should join the Council of Europe with the argument that it would be better both for Russia and for Europe for it to be in than out, so I should now recommend the end of my detailed monitoring of its commitments to encourage President Putin to pursue his reforms against the darker forces that threaten Russia today, and, it is also said, encourage him to attend the Council of Europe's third summit on 16 and 17 May in Warsaw.
	I cannot recommend the de-monitoring of Russia by the Council of Europe at the present time, and my latest progress report to the Assembly explains why. Russia has not met its obligations to be a free democracy. It has yet to hold elections that are fair. As the most recent parliamentary and presidential elections demonstrated, Russia does not have a national television broadcasting system that is unbiased and free of state influence and control. Thus I am insisting that at least one mainstream channel that is politically neutral and impartial should be established, which is also the recommendation of the Committee of Ministers.
	The independence of the judiciary is another basic obligation of membership of the Council of Europe. I welcome the considerable reforms that introduce the presumption of innocence, juries and magistrate courts, and the requirement of court orders for search and arrest warrants, which was not the case at the time of the Soviet Union. But recent court cases, such as those concerning the physicist, Valentin Danilov and the scientist, Igor Sutyagin, and the current Yukos trial, suggest that Russia does not yet have a rule of law that is firmly entrenched.
	With regard to the detailed commitments that Russia made upon accession in 1996, I welcome the considerable reduction in the number of prisoners, the introduction of community service and non-custodial sentences for juveniles, and the undoubted commitment of the Ministry of Justice to improving prison conditions and to constructing new facilities. But needless to say, there are no votes in prison reform, and it will take years for sufficient resources to improve or replace the totally unacceptable conditions that I have seen in Russia's prisons, which were built to serve the Tsars.
	Other outstanding commitments are the reform of the office of the prosecutor general, whose powers of oversight remain far too wide, and of the Federal Security Bureau, the successor to the KGB, which continues to refuse to transfer the running of the Lefotovo detention centre to the Ministry of Justice.
	Last year's report by Human Rights Watch entitled "The Wrongs of Passage" shows that Russia's armed forces continue to fail to exercise a duty of care towards their young conscripts, hundreds of whom commit or attempt suicide each year, and who are subjected to degrading and brutal treatment known as dedovshina, or hazing. I am insisting that the Russian Government and the Duma get a grip on that wholly unacceptable situation.
	Freedom of religion is not yet enjoyed throughout the Russian Federation, as I heard when I met Jehovah's Witnesses and other religious organisations whose churches or prayer houses are regularly attacked or burned, with pastors beaten, meetings disrupted, often without any response from local law enforcement agencies. Regrettably, such campaigns are led or encouraged by the Russian Orthodox Church. I want zero tolerance of such harassment and persecution of people seeking to exercise freedom of worship.
	Russia continues to interfere in the internal affairs of other member states that were formerly part of the Soviet Union, contrary to its commitment to abandon a policy of having a zone of special influence, which it calls its "near abroad". The personnel, arsenal and equipment of the 14th Russian army remains in Transnistria, thus contributing to a divided Moldova. Russia maintains an active presence in Abkhazia in Georgia and encourages separatism by issuing dual passports to its citizens. That is not peacekeeping, but a long-standing policy of divide and rule, which is unacceptable in today's Europe.
	Another major commitment remains the signing of the European social charter and the convention on the transfer of sentenced persons, while the European charter for regional and minority languages has yet to be ratified. Above all, Russia has not yet abolished the death penalty, which I view as essential before I can recommend de-monitoring.
	I have not referred to the situation in Chechnya because when the Assembly accepted Russia in 1996, it agreed to my amendments providing for a separate monitoring mechanism for Chechnya, which introduced an international dimension into seeking a political solution. Until recently, Lord Judd undertook that onerous task. We continue to make clear to our Russian colleagues that as long as civilians disappear or are kidnapped and the military act with impunity, without being held to account, we cannot accept the claim that life in Chechnya is returning to normal.
	There is a great deal more in my report to the Assembly, which extends to 90 pages, describing the spheres in which Russia falls short of our standards. I accept that what I have said today is more appropriate to a single-subject Adjournment debate, but I have been unlucky in the ballot for several weeks, so I am grateful to the House for listening to what I have had to say today.
	Given what I saw on the streets of Leningrad 40 years ago, I am sorry that I cannot say that the Russian people today enjoy the same freedoms and rights as most Europeans. For the sake of the Russian people, I hope that the Council of Europe will continue to hold Russia to account for those standards, as I have tried to do, and I look forward to hearing in the Minister's response that that is the Government's approach, too.

Phyllis Starkey: I want to raise an issue of enormous concern to my constituents; it is about our local league one football team, the Milton Keynes Dons. The House will be relieved to know that I do not intend to rehearse all the old arguments about the events that led to Wimbledon football club relocating to Milton Keynes in late 2003 and taking, in July 2004, the new name of Milton Keynes Dons.
	I accept that some people—possibly some in the House—objected to the move and argued at the time that it set a dangerous precedent. A section of Wimbledon's supporters, including their supporters association, chose to transfer allegiance to the newly formed AFC Wimbledon, which is based in Kingston. Other Wimbledon fans followed the club to Milton Keynes.
	Obviously, my constituents and I take a view of events different from that taken by those who support AFC Wimbledon. Wimbledon FC was without a ground of its own, had been based outside its borough for a decade, and was faced with bankruptcy. The move to Milton Keynes was the only viable option, and it met the long-term aim originally set out by the Milton Keynes development corporation of ensuring that the new city had a Football League professional team of its own. The Football Association sanctioned the move, recognising the unique situation of Wimbledon FC and of Milton Keynes, and also agreed the name change in 2004.
	Milton Keynes Dons is now well established in Milton Keynes, playing at its temporary base of the National Hockey stadium. Crowds are getting larger, reaching about the average for league one, and there is a very active new supporters association. Work has begun on the new purpose-built stadium at Denbigh, and I was pleased to join Pete Winkelman in cutting the first turf there. I am pleased that the team's performance is taking the club away from the relegation zone, as it has remained unbeaten in the past eight games.
	The Milton Keynes Dons supporters association was established in May 2004. It is very active in all things usual for such an association, including holding a very successful appeal for the tsunami in support of a local charity that works in Sri Lanka. The association is anxious to ensure that fans have a strong voice in the plans for the new stadium and for the club's future. Immediately after its formation, it took steps to form a supporters trust. It approached Supporters Direct for help and advice, but unfortunately, that organisation has been extremely unhelpful.
	First, the MK Dons supporters association applied to Supporters Direct for financial assistance in establishing a supporters trust, as it was entitled to do. At the request of Supporters Direct, it clarified with the Football Association that
	"the team who moved to Milton Keynes was officially considered a continuation of Wimbledon FC, and would retain its share in the Football League and its league place."
	However, Supporters Direct refused to fund the MK Dons association on the grounds that it had funded a supporters trust for Wimbledon already. That decision had been taken before the club moved to Milton Keynes, and before AFC Wimbledon was formed. The money involved was spent before the original supporters trust transferred its allegiance from Wimbledon FC to AFC Wimbledon.
	The MK Dons supporters association reluctantly accepted that ruling, but asked instead for practical help from a liaison worker, as is normal when a trust is established. Subsequently, it requested access to the model constitution for trusts and asked Supporters Direct to sponsor an application to the Financial Services Authority for recognition as a supporters trust.
	Through the good offices of my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), a member of the Supporters Direct board, we persuaded that board to at least consider the request. Supporters Direct has made the model rules available, but it has declined to sponsor the MK Dons' application to the FSA, or to sponsor the supporters association's application to join Supporters Direct.
	My constituents and I are extremely angry about what we believe to be the improper and discriminatory decisions made by the Supporters Direct board. Regardless of the events surrounding the move to Milton Keynes, MK Dons is recognised by the FA to be the continuation of Wimbledon FC. The current members of the MK Dons supporters association had no involvement in the club's move to Milton Keynes. They are merely football supporters who wish to exercise, through a properly constituted supporters trust, some control over their club's future.
	I have read the aims of Supporters Direct, and my understanding is that that organisation was established precisely for that purpose—to promote and support the concept of democratic supporter ownership and representation through mutual not-for-profit structures, and to promote football clubs as civic and community institutions. That is what the MK Dons' supporters wanted when they asked to have their own supporters trust.
	Supporters Direct is an industrial and provident society, and its members are the existing supporters trusts. As someone formerly active in the co-operative movement, I know that that movement is well aware of the danger, for co-operative and mutual societies, of becoming exclusive rather than inclusive. I suggest that the members of Supporters Direct should remind themselves of their obligations under the equal opportunities legislation, and of the inclusive nature of a true co-operative and mutual society.
	However, Supporters Direct is in receipt of significant public funding—£325,000 in 2004–05 from Sport England and £90,000 from Sport Scotland. That funding is given on the basis that it should be available to help any supporters who fulfil the eligibility requirements and wish to form a supporters trust. My constituents in Milton Keynes, whose taxes, with everyone else's, are funding Supporters Direct, do not understand why they, uniquely, seem to be barred from gaining access to those funds.
	The reasons given by Supporters Direct for refusing to help MK Dons supporters seem to be based not on a fair and balanced assessment, but on prejudice and persistence in fighting a battle that was lost when Wimbledon moved to Milton Keynes. Many of those who were most active in founding Wimbledon AFC are involved in Supporters Direct either as board members or on the staff. They are entitled to their views, but they should not abuse their position to discriminate unfairly against my constituents who also want to form a   supporters trust and have a voice in their team's future.
	The Football Association is clear that MK Dons is the successor to Wimbledon FC. Supporters Direct used that to justify not funding a second trust linked to the same club, but then took no action against the original trust, which switched its allegiance to
	"a club other than the one it was originally set up for"—
	that is, Wimbledon AFC—in clear breach of Supporters Direct's rules. What authority does Supporters Direct have to set itself up against the Football Association and other bodies concerned with football?
	My constituents have been extremely patient and have tried to be accommodating, but their patience, and mine, is running out. I hope that at the end of this debate my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House will pass on to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and Tourism the points that I have made. I shall certainly ask him to intervene to ensure that the public funds given to Supporters Direct are in future allocated fairly and without prejudice and that my constituents do not continue to be discriminated against.

Angela Browning: Two years ago the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry attempted to come to Cornwall for a holiday. That was an excellent choice, but her plans were thwarted because she found that the transport system into Cornwall was not working as well as it should and she was forced to fly. As a result, she made many public statements in the west country about the Government's commitment to improve the road and rail infrastructure in and out of the south-west. She said:
	"What I know as Secretary of Trade for Trade and Industry is that when you are looking at the South West, getting the transport system right is one of the most important things you can do to help grow new businesses, to help those businesses to be more successful and bring in new investment to the region."
	The Secretary of State is persuasive and speaks, as we all know, in dulcet tones. When I am in a telephone system, having made my sixth selection of number to press with Brahms' second symphony playing in the background and a voice comes on the line and says, "Your call is important to us; we will answer your call as soon as possible", I could swear it is the voice of the Secretary of State. She has a persuasive tone that suggests that if we hang on, our call will definitely be answered. In the south-west we have been hanging on for two years waiting for the Secretary of State's support for some of the issues concerning our roads.
	The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) is in his place and I know how hard he has worked. With the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy), we have made a three-party attempt to persuade the Secretary of State to support, for example, dualling of the A303, which goes through my constituency and is of strategic importance to the whole south-west peninsula.
	Unfortunately, as I have said many times in debates, the Secretary of State for Transport has decided not to dual the A303, so we have only one strategic route in and out of the south-west peninsula—the M5 as far as Exeter and then other roads further into Devon and Cornwall.
	All three Members of Parliament I have mentioned received representations from the Devon and Cornwall business council and we all wrote, in a collective exercise, to get the Secretary of State to support us. We had hoped that she would make representations to the Department of Transport, but disappointingly we can only conclude that she did not press the case for dualling the road, as she had promised in 2003, for the business interests of the south-west.
	Even more worryingly, I recently came across a map of the south-west and the south of England which showed that, according to the Government, there were no roads west of Bristol regarded as of strategic national importance. I tabled parliamentary questions to ask Ministers to list all the trunk roads, which include the A30, the A38 and the M5, which goes on past Bristol down to Exeter. I was astonished to find that a major motorway was not regarded as of national importance. In answer, the Government said that they had divided all the roads in the country into two groups, those of strategic national importance and those of regional importance. As far as the Government are concerned, there is nothing of national importance west of Bristol. They say that the classification is to enable local decision making about those roads in the future and that funding will be allocated at local levels rather than through the Government budget for the Highways Agency.
	The Government's reason sounds persuasive and I can just hear the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in her dulcet tones, telling us how wonderful that will be. But in reality it means that some of the bigger issues, such as road maintenance for the M5 and some of the structural changes that will be needed, will no longer have the backing of a national Government budget but will come out of the much stretched resources of the region. That will affect various junctions along the M5. For example, at the exit to the services at Exeter, a whole new town is to be built, and the junction will therefore almost certainly need major restructuring and investment. As my political colleague, John Penrose, in Weston-super-Mare, pointed out on hearing the news, junction 21, the Weston-super-Mare turn-off, will almost certainly need more investment.
	I do not know why the Government regard the south-west peninsula as a second-class region of this country, but inward investment and important industries rely on good road infrastructure. That is self-evident in the case of tourism, but we also have successful manufacturing businesses throughout the area. When a company is deciding where to relocate, the Government's view of the strategic importance of the road and rail network is one of its considerations. Inward investment in the south-west will therefore be seriously compromised by the fact that the Government are cutting off the south-west from what they see as the important areas of the country. On this issue, I feel like a grumpy old woman—[Hon. Members: "Never!"] In fact, I am hopping mad about it.
	People in the south-west, and I speak personally about my constituents in Tiverton and Honiton, are hardworking. They come from mainly rural backgrounds—even the towns in my constituency are rural market towns—where people are very self-sufficient and prepared to work hard. Yet somehow, their area is regarded by London as a second-class area with second-class citizens. We have seen the effect that has on some of our indigenous industries, especially farming.
	Farming has taken a real knock in my constituency, which is primarily made up of mixed, small, family farms. There have been changes in the countryside, but in my constituency, the perception is that the Government regard us as second-class citizens, in second-class communities.
	When we were going into the last election, foot and mouth was with us. None of us who lived through that time will forget it, yet four years later we have still received no definitive answers from the Government about the cause of the outbreak and the lessons to be learned. There have been many inquiries, but none of them seems to have been joined up. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I recently had the opportunity to question the permanent secretary at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the chief vet and others. The Government say that they believe the index farm, which belonged to Mr. Bobby Waugh, was where animals were fed unprocessed catering waste; but what they have not told us—and I have pressed them on this in the Committee recently—is that it was not simply the fact that animals on that farm were fed unprocessed waste but that such waste was kept on the farm at all. It is illegal to have unprocessed food on a farm, yet recently the DEFRA permanent secretary wrote to the national co-ordinator of Associated Swill Users:
	"Some unprocessed catering waste was held temporarily in barrels on a hard standing in front of Burnside Farm, before being removed for processing."
	If we are to learn lessons from the last outbreak of foot and mouth, it is important to identify where and why it broke out. The consequences of another outbreak, in slaughter and further losses in the rural economy, will not just be felt in pound note terms; the emotional stress of the farming community cannot be quantified.
	I want the Government to treat rural communities and farming areas such as mine more seriously and not take them for granted, discarding them as second-class citizens or areas. I was not born in Devon. I have lived there for only 35 years so I am not local yet, but the people of Devon are the salt of the earth. They make this country what it is. They believe in fair play and in straight talking—sometimes their straight talking is very straight indeed. They want to know that in Parliament, whoever is in power, they will receive a fair deal and that they will get straight answers to their questions. They want to feel that our democracy will treat them fairly and not discard them.
	As we end this term of Parliament and, I hope, go into a general election, I make this plea. The rural communities of this country must change—we all understand that— but equally the Government of the day must understand that rural and urban communities are different. Rural communities have sound values and their people are independent-minded. Those people make me proud to represent them and I hope that the Government, too, will be proud of our rural communities and make sure that they get fair play.

Julia Drown: This is my last opportunity to address this Parliament. I am proud to represent both rural and urban communities and I must say that I see no great distinction as I move from one to the other. There are different flavours and different policy aspects and it is important that policy be rural-proofed, but I am pleased that on so many of the issues that I have raised on behalf of my constituents there is consistency of view.
	People in the rural and urban communities of my constituency were pleased that I lobbied successfully for a new hospital in Swindon, which has modern facilities and more beds than the old one, and is able to treat many more patients. Next month, we will see the opening of our treatment centre, which can accommodate a further 128 beds and five operating theatres, so we can hope for even more improvement in the town's health services.
	I am also pleased to have lobbied successfully to get money into our schools, including the replacement of the world war huts in which our pupils previously had to learn their lessons; instead, they are now in modern accommodation. I have also been successful in lobbying the Government on some of the crime and antisocial behaviour issues that my constituents have raised with me. What has happened in Wiltshire is a good story. Wiltshire is now the safest county in the country, and I pay tribute to the work of our police force. We have had a number of community support officers because of Government investment, and street wardens have made an enormous difference to the town as well.
	All those people working together have been able to tackle crime. From April to December last year, we saw crime overall drop by more than 5 per cent. and a 1 per cent. increase in the detection rate. Robberies are down by about 13 per cent.—burglaries similarly—and violent crime has been reduced by 2 per cent. That is a comfort to my constituents. Although the perception is often that crime is still increasing, the reality is the other way round. Some of our legislation on antisocial behaviour is incredibly important in getting across the message that, if the community works together, we can tackle crime and make us all feel safer.
	I have had to pursue in Parliament antisocial behaviour issues associated with Travellers. I am pleased that the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 includes legislation to deal with those issues and that additional stop notices have been introduced this month. Central Swindon has a problem with prostitution, and again, antisocial behaviour orders have given the local community and the local authority, with the police, the power to improve neighbourhoods.
	On general antisocial behaviour issues, I am pleased that, in the past couple of weeks, an interim antisocial behaviour order on a youth in Freshbook in my constituency has been confirmed as a two-year order. It was great to see local residents coming out to talk to the local newspaper and saying, "The interim order has made an enormous difference to our lives." Local publicans are saying that people can walk out without fear of intimidation and that they can bring back a sense of community. That makes a real difference to the quality of people's lives across the board—young and old—and I congratulate the Government on responding to pressure from Back Benchers to introduce that legislation.
	Our understanding of the community contrasts strongly with some Conservatives' activities, certainly on the ground in Swindon, where the local council has recently produced a budget in which there are massive cuts to our voluntary sector. Those involved say that they support the voluntary sector, yet they withdraw grants of £50,000 to advice points, saying, "Oh, there is a duplication of provision", when there are massive waiting lists for advice. Those advice points serve the most disadvantaged people in our community and people absolutely depend on them to deal with financial and housing problems. I suspect that, if those places really do close down, it will end up costing the council more in the long run. So there is a contrast between what we have done and how we have responded to communities and what we have seen from the Conservatives.
	As this is my last chance to comment on some issues, I particularly want to look at some of the ways in which we work in the House, because a lot of what we do we do inefficiently. Although I appreciate and support all the work of the Modernisation Committee, much more needs to be done if we are to make our democracy more effective, to get the public to relate better to Parliament, to reduce the cost of Parliament and to improve MPs' lives, which is particularly important because, if we improve the job of being an MP, we can get more of the very best people in the country to become MPs. That is in itself important for democracy.
	I know that people straightaway talk about the hours of the House, which are important. There is a huge danger, because it is always easy to vote for more hours of debating time, but hard to ask for them to be reduced so that we can spend time more efficiently. However, we clearly could do that.
	There have been more than 1,200 Divisions during this Parliament, but we could have the predicted the results of virtually all of them before they were held. [Interruption.] Yes, all of them, except for a few. However, most of us have been here to vote in those Divisions. Anyone who has not taken part in a debate has had to stop what they have been doing—perhaps rudely having to say goodbye to constituents whom they have been seeing—to traipse over here and go through the Lobby. Some people might say that we are sent here to vote, but we could vote electronically. As happens in some councils, we could tell Mr. Speaker before a debate whether we wanted to abstain or vote against our party line. We could have a named vote, if that were needed.
	I calculate that each of us wastes an average of 15 minutes during each Division. An average 436 Members have voted in each of those 1,200 Divisions, so an average of three weeks of work time is wasted for each Division. So far, this Parliament has wasted 70 years of work time voting. If Ministers and Members had voted efficiently, we could have spent that time on our constituents, or even with our families. We all say that families are important, so we could improve Westminster and make life more sensible. We have each wasted an average of eight weeks of time during Divisions that we could have spent better.
	I support the point made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) about Prime Minister's Question Time. It is not a useful addition to our democracy. It is no wonder that seeing that sparring match turns many young people off, so I would like that to be addressed too.
	It is daft that we are not allowed to sit and work in the Chamber while other people are speaking. The idea that Members cannot do a bit of work or read while listening to a debate is wrong. We all have to do that during our lives because we all have too much to do, so the problem should be addressed.
	We still have not done anything significant on child care. We have more bars that I have cared to find out during my time here, and we have restaurants, a hairdressers and a gym. Yes, there are about 10,000 people working in Westminster, so why not have those facilities; but should we not address the question of nurseries, too?
	During debates on modernisation, I have always been identified as the breastfeeding MP because I have rightly promoted breastfeeding. It is good for mums and good for babies. I thank Mr. Speaker for providing facilities for breastfeeding mums, but there is no reason why we should not be more positive about breastfeeding. One million babies throughout the world die every year because of low breastfeeding rates, so we should do more to promote it. It is ludicrous that members of the public cannot sit in the Gallery behind that screen and breastfeed. What problem would it cause?
	It was sad for democracy that a decision was made to ban breastfeeding from the Committees of the House. Every single professional organisation wrote in to say that breastfeeding should be allowed and the majority of Members made it clear that they supported it by signing early-day motions. If all those people support breastfeeding, why not go ahead and allow it?
	There seems to be a sensitivity to the effect that if we change things in the House, it will somehow fall apart and destroy itself. We should be more willing to experiment and relax. We are too defensive. If we cannot properly debate and decide things in the mother of Parliaments on the basis of professional advice and what most people want, it is a sad day for democracy. Mr. Speaker himself said to me, "Julia, you should just have gone ahead and done it. You shouldn't have asked." That is crazy—I do not want to put the staff of the Serjeant at Arms in an embarrassing position. We should be able to listen to professional organisations and do what is right. I remember Tony Benn saying to me, "Julia, the only way to get a crèche in this place is to go round, get nice big A4 posters, shove them on the front of a bar and turn it into a nursery. That's the only way you're going to get it done." I look to hon. Members in the next Parliament to do better and achieve what we should be able to do: talk about such matters and vote on them.
	I have been pleased to represent South Swindon, which is a fine place in which to live. All hon. Members are invited to an exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall in the parliamentary week starting 4 April at which Swindon Dance will exhibit its fantastic work. I am grateful to all my constituents, who have thanked me and pointed out how much we have been able to achieve by working with activists in many organisations throughout the town. I am pleased to have done that work, and my constituents have noticed the difference between a hard-working Labour MP and an inactive Tory MP who did nothing for the town. I thank activists and volunteers in the Labour party and other groups, and I also thank my staff. Democracy is wonderful, but it needs to improve in this country. I am pleased to have played my part in it—and you never know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in future, I may be back.

Alistair Burt: I do not agree with everything that the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) said, but her contribution demonstrates the value of these Adjournment debates and the way in which we can raise many different things at the end of term. I was disappointed, however, that she had to end on a rather unpleasant note. Many of us worked with her predecessor and thought well of him, and a generous comment at the end of her speech might have served her rather better in the House.
	My constituents would like four issues to be aired before this Session is completed. I shall explain the first briefly, then try to lump the remaining three together. May I make a plea to Ministers on behalf of my constituents to tackle the refitting of the St. Pancras Thameslink rail terminal? For 35 weeks, commuters from Bedford travelling on the Thameslink midlands main line into St. Pancras have endured without complaint what they call "the blockade". Thameslink used to run right through the centre of town, and people could travel from Bedford to Brighton, but they have been prevented from doing so by the works at the new Eurostar terminal at St. Pancras. By and large, the works seem to have gone well, but commuters have been told that the Thameslink station, which should have been completed with the rest of the terminal by June 2007, will not be ready then.
	That is a tragedy, as it would prevent interchanges between the Thameslink line and European services, between the proposed Olympic service to east London and the Midland Main line, and with the Great Northern suburban services. It is like building a motorway without junctions. Would the Deputy Leader of the House kindly talk to the Minister of State, Department for Transport, who is responsible for rail transport, to see whether we can secure a commitment to complete that work? In commuters' minds, the issue is coloured by their concerns about Thameslink 2000, which is now known as Thameslink 3000, because it has simply not happened. Completion would be a gesture of good will towards commuters, who pay over the odds for fares with rises that exceed inflation. Thameslink makes a contribution with a premium payment to the Strategic Rail Authority, so there is no shortage of cash and completion would be a great help. I am grateful to Andrew Long of the Bedford Commuters Association for the support and information that he has provided.
	I shall group the next three items together, and would be grateful for the assistance of the House in helping me to create an interactive event. Imagine that we are presented with a form from Her Majesty's Government for the new citizenship test, albeit one at an advanced level. We are asked what we would do in three situations and in which one we would expect the Government to intervene. The three situations arise in my constituency, but they could occur elsewhere. First, situation A: Swineshead is a village in the north of my constituency. It does not have any shops, and it no longer has a village pub, but it does have a village hall which, along with the church, is the only place where people can gather in large numbers. Twice a month, the village hall provides an opportunity for people to get together and use its bar, which makes modest profits of £300 to £400 a year. Those profits are used for the benefit of the village to assist with small repairs and so on. The village hall and the village pay £30 every three years for the licence or £10 a year. Under the Licensing Act 2003, there will be a charge of £190 for the transfer to the new system, followed by a regular charge of £150 a year. That is 15 times the current charge—money that will be taken out of the modest profits and which cannot be used for village purposes. It is a payment to bureaucracy resulting from the new Licensing Act. Would the Government intervene to assist that village in retaining its funds for village purposes?
	The second situation concerns the multiple sclerosis therapy centre in Bedford, which serves Bedfordshire. It is one of 36 centres in England and Wales. They are all voluntary, run for charitable purposes and staffed by volunteers. A couple of years ago the centres came under the Healthcare Commission for inspection. They did not mind. They had previously been self-regulated, but they accepted the need for regulation and inspection. Even so, some odd requirements were added—for instance, the centre in Bedford is required to have a protocol for what happens when the toilet rolls run out. For 20 years the centre was run without that, but we will let it pass because the centre is letting it pass.
	The inspection charge at first and for this year is £1,080. This year it is proposed to increase it by 45 per cent., and by 2008 the charge will be £4,000 a year. That is what the Healthcare Commission has been told to charge, because it must make ends meet and be self-financing, by order of the Government. The voluntary centre says that the money is being taken out of the funds used to provide for patients and their friends, and it is money that can be raised only by volunteers standing on a street corner and shaking a tin. Would the Government intervene to prevent that 300 per cent. increase in charges, to help multiple sclerosis sufferers and their families?
	Or take situation C—Mid Bedfordshire district council, a low-charging district council. It charges the 10th lowest rates out of the 238 district councils in England and Wales—£90.18 per year is a typical charge. The council is under pressure to provide more services and works closely with the Government. It identified £2.4 million worth of savings over the past three years, but this year it must increase its charges by 13.3 per cent., which equates to £1 per month.
	I have put to the House three situations, A, B and C. Will the Government intervene in situation A, where villages are asked to pay more money for licensing bureaucracy? Will the Government intervene in situation B, where multiple sclerosis centres face an increase of 300 per cent. in their inspection charges for the Government inspector? Or will the Government intervene in situation C, in order to safeguard the ratepayer from a rise of £1 per month from a district council?
	I know the answer: it is situation C, where the Government have already decided to intervene and are rate-capping Mid Bedfordshire district council for the appalling crime of charging an extra £1 per month on its council tax in the coming year. They leave aside the several hundred per cent. increase in licensing charges for Swineshead village hall. They are not interested in the 300 per cent. increase in inspection costs for the multiple sclerosis centre. No, they have decided to bring the might of Whitehall to bear, and have capped Mid Bedfordshire district council for charging an extra £1 a month.
	Yesterday in the Chamber I was very cross with the Minister for Local and Regional Government. I spoke and behaved in a way that I do not normally do, because I am a moderate sort of chap, as the Whip, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy), knows full well from our frequent games of football together. Today I am not cross. I just find it ridiculous. That is why I present the three situations to the House and ask what we would do, were we the Government. Which one would we choose to intervene in?
	What does the choice tell us? It tells us that the Government have lost their compass—their sense of proportion. Village halls across Britain face increases of the sort that I described. It seems to them nonsense that they should needlessly have to pay more to a licensing authority—money that would otherwise be used in the village for communal purposes. Why can they not be relieved of the burden?
	Multiple sclerosis therapy centres are providing a free service to the national health service, doing work and raising their own money, with volunteers standing on street corners, going to shopping centres and running bring and buy events. If they downed tools and did not do that, who would pick up the responsibility? To be facing the same inspection charges as a BUPA therapy centre may face is nonsense, but the Government have not listened.
	Two months ago, I and my constituents in Swineshead wrote to the Government to get an answer on the licensing. We have not heard anything. The multiple sclerosis centres have written to the Minister. They have had an answer but no assistance. Mid Bedfordshire district council has certainly heard from the Minister for Local and Regional Government, who has decided to cap it for £1 a month.
	I was a member of a London local authority in 1982. I know what rate capping was designed to do. Businesses were driven out of London boroughs because of the high rate increases that were introduced by a few very high spending councils. We all know that the world is different now. Labour is in government because the loony left was dealt with. That was what the power of rate capping—the power of this place to intervene in local democracy—was about. It was not about dealing with the Mid Bedfordshires of this country or about dealing with low-charging authorities spending an extra £1 a month, but finding that converted into a percentage that makes the Government step in and use their power. It shows that the Government have lost their sense of proportion, lost their moral competence and lost the plot.
	I leave those questions hanging. What would hon. Members do if they were facing the citizenship test? Most of us in the Chamber would find a better answer than situation C. I appeal to the Minister—I know that he will have only a short time to wind up the debate—to answer the question: why, of the three situations, is only one attracting direct Government intervention? Will he please go to his colleagues and ask them to deal with the other two on behalf of the therapy centres and village halls around the country, not least because of the district councils that are doing their best and facing that ridiculous power of capping for a very small degree of hurt?

Bob Spink: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer), who is an assiduous constituency Member of Parliament, even though his father used to keep me up late at night in the early 1990s. I forgive him for that and I wish him well. I am particularly pleased to follow him because I agree with what he said about the euro. If we lose the pound and move to the euro, that will sound the death knell to Britain's sovereignty, so I stand shoulder to shoulder with him on that. Europe remains one of the defining issues. In Essex it will be a key issue in the general election, and I hope that no one is seduced to vote for the UK Independence party, which would betray Britain. I see hon. Members agreeing with their smiles and nods.
	Having got that off my chest, let me return to the real debate this afternoon and go straight to the key subject of hospice funding. This country's funding of adult hospices from Government sources stands at about 20 per cent. or a little lower, yet children's hospices are funded at a miserly rate of 5 per cent. That is far too low. Yet set against the 1.8 per cent. that Little Haven hospice in my constituency received from Government funding last year, the average 5 per cent. for children's hospices looks downright generous. I shall now look at the Minister and establish eye contact with him—I know that he expects me to raise this matter, as I always do. He has his answers written down and I hope that included in them, will be an undertaking to tackle the strategic health authority in Essex and the primary care trust to ensure that for this year and next, Little Haven receives at least the average 5 per cent. funding that other children's hospices receive.
	Depriving children's hospices of reasonable funding is to betray the wonderful people, the dedicated staff, who work in them, and the volunteers who raise money for them. Very much included among those are the three Conservative clubs in Castle Point—the Hadleigh club, the Benfleet club, where I shall go immediately after this debate, and the Canvey club. I know that the Minister is listening; he is a jolly good man. Finally, I want to say that I am proud to be a Conservative on this issue, as my party's policy is for the Government to fund both children's and adult hospices at the rate of 40 per cent. a year. That sounds to me like an election-winning policy if ever there was one.
	I now move on to a matter of serious concern in my  constituency and the south-east generally—development. The overdevelopment of my constituency, without any infrastructural provision whatever, is irresponsible. Fortunately for me, the people in my constituency understand that the problem has been forced on Castle Point by the Deputy Prime Minister, who has set a target of building 4,000 extra houses. I wish he could visit Castle Point so that he could show my constituents where he wants those houses to go, and answer their questions about the lack of infrastructure.
	I have fought every major planning application in my constituency. I have fought to stop the overdevelopment of my beautiful borough and the destruction of our green belt. I have fought to secure decent infrastructure in the area, and I hope that my constituents will bear this issue at the forefront of their minds at the coming general election. It is an issue that affects the quality of their lives. When I raised the matter with the Deputy Prime Minister himself two or three months ago, he referred to my constituents as nimbys. They were outraged and the local press was outraged. I am sure that my constituents would have a word or two for the Deputy Prime Minister if he ever ventured into my constituency.
	Another major issue in Castle Point is infrastructure. We need to do something at Saddlers Farm on the A13 to achieve grade separation and improve the traffic flows on that major road. We also need to improve the junctions at Tarpots and in Hadleigh.
	However, our major problem is that we lack an additional access road to Canvey island, where more than 40,000 people live. If—God forbid!—the island ever had to be evacuated, those people could not be removed in good time. Safety is one of the issues, but there are also questions of convenience and quality of life. My constituents often wait for hours when there is an accident, or if the main access road is closed for some other reason. That does not happen only a few times a year: it happens almost every month, and sometimes twice a month. It is a major problem, and we must tackle it seriously.
	An equally important problem is the c2c rail line, to which the hon. Member for Hornchurch referred. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) probably referred to it too, as he is a great fighter on behalf of the commuters who use that line. About 4,000 of my constituents use the line to commute to London.
	Benfleet station is the busiest station on the c2c line. Peak-time trains are often full and overcrowded when they stop there, so my constituents get a bad deal, as they have to stand up for the 35 or 40 minutes that the journey to London takes. That is unsafe, and not very nice; I know, as I have to do journey myself, from time to time. Therefore, I was disgusted when five train sets were removed from the line last September. With other MPs, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), I ran a campaign to get the trains back. The local Yellow Advertiser newspaper also ran an important campaign to the same end.
	I am delighted to be able to congratulate the Secretary of State for Transport, who gave me an undertaking in this House just a week or so ago that those five train sets would be returned to the c2c line sometime this year. However, I am slightly disappointed, as "sometime this year" is not good enough. I want those train sets back on my line so that my constituents do not have to stand, which is generally what happens, as that is unsafe and inconvenient. Moreover, I want them back before the summer. That is what I shall press for, if I am fortunate enough to be re-elected.
	I want to say a few words about the need for more police officers, community support officers and special constables. The police have a very hard job, and they do it extremely well in my constituency. However, they need more resources to keep police stations open so that they can do their job properly, and they need a lot less bureaucracy.
	In addition, we need more facilities for kids, to get them off the street by offering them alternative things to do. We need to tackle asylum abuse too, but there is clearly not time to deal with that today.
	Finally, I want to say that I represent a very beautiful area of south Essex. My constituency nestles on the Thames, and Canvey island is actually part of the Thames estuary. The area has a remarkable heritage, but most importantly, its people are really good and self-reliant. They love their country and their community, which they want to be protected and improved.
	An election is due. More than most, I know that this may be my last speech in this House. I accept that: I am a democrat and have been humiliated by the electorate before. I also know that I have four excellent candidates up against me in Castle Point, and I wish each of them well. They are good people.
	I want to end by saying that I have worked hard for my constituents, country and community. I have worked especially hard to protect Britain, in Europe and in an uncertain world. I have very much enjoyed being an MP. There is no greater privilege or honour than to be elected to represent the community in which one lives. I therefore thank all my constituents—even those who seem to write to me every day.

Jane Griffiths: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which has rather moved me.
	I want to raise quickly in the short time that I have left a couple of issues that have emerged recently in my constituency. It is painful to say it, but after the 2004 local and European elections, there was some concern about the possibility that large numbers of postal votes were not all done correctly. That is certainly a concern that I raised in respect of Redlands ward of my constituency, but we in Reading are not alone in having that experience. A police investigation has been carried out. An internal audit by Reading borough council has also considered the matter, and both investigations have uncovered serious irregularities.
	The findings of the internal audit investigation were given to Thames Valley police, who carried out their own investigation, the outcome of which was a determination that voting fraud had been widespread in Redlands ward, where people had voted either using the identities of people who had moved away, or had invented the identities of people who simply did not exist. It has not been possible for the police to find evidence against any individual, but the fact remains that we are left in a situation that will not inspire confidence in any future election.
	I understand that a petition to rerun an election must be presented within 21 days, so there is no way for the courts to become involved in the matter. The local Liberal Democrat and Conservative parties have called for the election in Redlands ward to be run again, and today's Evening Post—the local paper in Reading—has as its headline, "Resign in the Name of Democracy". In the spirit of cross-party working in most unfortunate circumstances, I must agree with all three and say that the three councillors elected last June in Redlands ward should resign and let us run the election again.
	It is disappointing that the chairman of Reading Labour party, Stuart Singleton-White, has said that he does not think that there is a case for re-running the election because of the majority involved and the fact that the number of votes was so great. He does not feel that the outcome would be influenced thereby. I am sorry, but if one ballot paper is fraudulent, the election should be run again. I hope that the three councillors will listen to reason in their interests, in all our interests and in the interests of democracy, because as the saying goes, "You can't be a little bit pregnant"—there is either fraud or there is not.
	It has been determined that there was fraud, so the people of Redlands ward in the heart of my constituency have the right to believe that, when they cast their votes, the councillors that they elect—or, indeed, the Member of Parliament whom they will elect in due course—have been elected freely and fairly. I have been part of election teams in six different elections, mostly in the former Soviet Union, and I take that responsibility very seriously. We are always very frank in the reports that we make following our observations. How can I return to my constituency and say, "Oh well, of course, we wagged out fingers in Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Armenia, but it is okay in Reading."? It is not okay. I am sorry that both Reading borough council and Reading Labour party are not yet with us on that, but I think that they will be; I think that they will see sense.
	I wish to raise another slightly painful issue. A recent libel case has involved two hon. Members—not me—on opposite sides of the House: my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) and the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who is not in his place. As that action was at least in part based on a letter that I wrote to a constituent who had questions for me, I feel that I must, painful though it is, mention the matter today.
	I will not regale the House with the details of everything in the letter and everything that has been said because most of them, in any case, are in the public domain. However, I must say that I spoke the truth and wrote the truth in the letter. I hold no brief for the hon. Member for Woodspring, but what he has said publicly has been the truth. I hope that the matter can be set straight.
	I will not stand by and see untruths perpetrated. I will fight against corruption and bullying wherever I see them. I am quite sure that my successor in Reading, East—I wish him well, whoever he might be—will have that same battle to fight. I hope that he succeeds. I hope that he will not tolerate bullying. I hope that more people will not have to be the victims of it in the way in which too many have been. I hope that no one in the future will tolerate that corruption—I am sorry to have to use that word, but it is the word that must be used—and that it will not be allowed to continue.
	I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I wish friends, colleagues and all hon. Members here a happy and tranquil Easter, and a peaceful and better future for all of us?

Julian Lewis: This has certainly been a valedictory debate, in more ways than one. We are closing this particular part of the parliamentary year for the Easter recess, and as we have heard time and again, many hon. Members have been taking the opportunity to make what will almost certainly be their final contributions in the House if, as we expect, a general election is called shortly after our return.
	Once again, the Deputy Leader of the House and I face the unenviable task of trying to summarise many speeches in a relatively short time. I believe that 19 speeches have been made during the debate: 10 by Labour Members, seven by Conservative Members and two by Liberal Democrats. I cannot help but observe that the two Liberal Democrats who contributed to the debate are both retiring. I suppose that we must all draw our own conclusions about where their colleagues are at the moment, but they are certainly not in the House of Commons earning their money.
	In preparation for these debates, I always seek inspiration from the news of the day, or at least any other electronic communications that come my way. Hon. Members can imagine my chagrin when, as I checked my e-mails before coming into the Chamber for the start of the debate, I found that a single e-mail had arrived. I do not often get spam, so I fear that someone is trying to tell me something. The e-mail was from an organisation called Skills Train and had as its subject, "Train for a new career today". I am not sure what the organisation has in mind, although it says that any one of a wide variety of career paths could be mine. However, if the good electors of New Forest, East do what I want them to do, I hope that I will not have to take up that offer for at least a few years to come.
	The custom at such times has been to pay tribute to colleagues who are retiring, and I know that the Deputy Leader of the House intends to do that to at least some such Labour Members. I know that more than a dozen of my colleagues will be stepping down at the election, so I would like to say a brief word about a few who have especially touched my life during the course of a political career that went on for a considerable time before I was fortunate enough to be elected.
	Top of the list must be my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Dame Marion Roe), who brought more than a dash of glamour to the Conservative Benches during her distinguished career. I include her on the list because she has never been known to be stumped by a constituency case. I have always borne in mind the example she gave me of a sad lady who visited her. The lady was quivering and extremely nervous and agitated as she explained that she was constantly being zapped by rays coming from the men of Mars via the medium of her television screen. For a brief moment, my hon. Friend was stumped, but inspiration struck, and she said to that poor lady, "This is quite simple to deal with. Every time you watch television, put on a pair of rubber boots, which will prevent the rays from being earthed and the problem will go away." The lady never returned to see my hon. Friend, but whether that was because the prescription worked, or because her bluff had been called, or because it was an episode of "Candid Camera" that was never shown, I do not know. However, if I remember my hon. Friend for nothing else—and I shall remember her for a great deal more—I shall certainly always keep her wise ability to deal with a constituency case diplomatically and effectively in the forefront of my mind.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) made a significant contribution to today's debate. For three decades or more, he has fought for the battle for British sovereignty both inside and outside the House. His campaign against the European Union's assumption of powers that ought to remain in the grasp of our country, Parliament and electorate is unparalleled. It is a source of shame to me as a Conservative that for a brief period the Whip was withdrawn from him for continuing to say on that vital issue what he had said all his political career. I can assure him, although I am sure that he does not need reassurance, that such a thing would never happen in today's Conservative party.
	Right to the end of his political career, my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) has assiduously participated in Question Time after Question Time, and has shown throughout that courtesy and gentility are alive and well in the House of Commons. My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) is also retiring. The House should be aware that he did an enormous amount of cross-party work with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy to bring the benefits of training in democratic techniques to the new democracies that were formerly part of the Soviet and eastern European bloc. They have benefited from his guidance and advice. When I was a recalcitrant official at Conservative central office, I benefited from the wise and kind advice that he gave me as deputy party chairman.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) will probably not remember this, but when he was chairman of the Young Conservatives he took the time in the midst of a busy party conference in Blackpool to give encouragement to a young state schoolboy—myself—who was attending his first ever national Conservative conference, and to give advice about how to conduct oneself at such events. I am sure that many of us have had similar experiences—we know how much it means at the outset of our political careers to receive advice from people whose own political careers are well advanced, and we appreciate their taking the time and trouble to do so. Finally, my hon.Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who had a distinguished front-line career in the Royal Air Force, has been committed to the defence of the United Kingdom for decades. I have found his career and principled adherence to the promotion of this country's defence inspirational over the years.
	Before I come to the contributions to our debate, I should like to make one more point. We have all, not least myself, spent a great deal of time talking about Members who are leaving the Commons, but we should bear in mind the situation of the young hopefuls in every party who, even as we speak, are gearing up to try to enter the House of Commons for the first time. Who can forget the ordeal of the selection process? Who can forget the task of forging a campaign team from a variety of volunteer activists? [Interruption.] Hon. Members say that they wish that they could forget, but I am sure that it is burned indelibly on their souls, just as it is on mine. Who can forget what it feels like stepping into the unknown for the first time on polling day? Like other hon. Members, I have personal friends standing in seats from Bournemouth and Brighton to Harlow and Worcester, from Eastleigh and Romsey to the Forest of Dean, from Weston-super-Mare to Mid-Dorset and North Poole and many, many more. I wish them well in the ordeal that they face, as I am sure hon. Members in other parties wish their friends, whom no doubt they are encouraging, as I would wish to encourage mine.
	Once again, this end-of-term debate shows the value of the single Member constituency. Who can doubt for a second that the speeches that we have heard today showing the depth of knowledge, commitment and understanding about local issues are a direct result of the way in which the individual Member of Parliament is allocated an individual geographical area and a particular collection of citizens of the United Kingdom to represent?
	I begin by mentioning the first speaker, the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), whose contribution showed his intense commitment to the manufacturing and aerospace industries as they are represented in his constituency. I would expect nothing less from a former head of policy for a major trade union and a former member of the TUC general council, as I know he is. He clearly has a tremendous commitment to Airbus and to his constituency work force, but I would like to pay tribute to him for something else. He was the first speaker in the debate, and he remained in the Chamber throughout the entire debate till the very end, listening to every other contribution. I take my hat off, metaphorically speaking, to him for doing that.
	Then my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East spoke in detail about devolution and said that now that it has been tried for a considerable time, people should be given a chance to have a say once again, but this time with the experience and ability to judge whether they consider it has worked or not. I cannot think of any reason to oppose such a suggestion. He spoke also about asylum seekers who abuse the system by deliberately destroying their papers after entry. He referred, as I would have expected, to the EU and to the Iraq war, and he said that many young people are switching off politics. That theme recurred in many other contributions.
	No one could fail to be moved by the contribution ofthe hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), who spoke in great detail about a case on which he had been working for 18 years. The fact that he chose to use his last contribution in the House to bring what comfort he could to the family whom he represented so assiduously shows a great nobility of spirit. I am sure that that family will treasure the words that he had to say about their case.
	The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) is an extremely assiduous parliamentarian. He once again returned to the Steven Roberts case—the terrible case of the soldier who told his wife before his death occurred that he had been forced to give up body armour, and then indeed lost his life in Iraq as a result of being forced to give up body armour. I add my own tribute to the extremely brave campaign that his widow, Samantha Roberts, has been waging to get justice for his memory.
	I am not entirely sure that I agree with the hon. Gentleman on his dislike of jousting in the Commons Chamber. It is a fact that if we were to remove from the parliamentary process the adversarial system, and substitute for it a system where politicians of all parties were effectively in each other's pockets, democracy as a whole would be the loser. The way in which corruption is dealt with in a democratic system is for people who err to know that if they err, their political opponents will be on to it like a shot. Woe betide us if we ever get to a situation where all politicians are chums not just personally, as many of us are across the divide of the House, but politically. I have had dealings with people who live in societies that are run by constant coalitions. They tell me that they can never really have confidence in going to a member of the opposition in order to criticise the Government because they can never be sure that, the next day, that member of the opposition will not be in alliance with that Government. Therefore they will always pull their punches. In a democracy, we do not want politicians to pull their punches.
	The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) also shared the view of not liking combative politics.

Caroline Flint: I congratulate the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) on securing this Adjournment debate. He is obviously doing what he should be doing on behalf of a constituent as a constituency Member of Parliament, and I understand his concerns for his constituent and his constituent's family. As I have already made clear to the hon. Gentleman, I take no issue with his setting out his reasons for believing that Mr. Giles Carlyle-Clarke should not be extradited to the US, but I should like to put the context of the case before the House this evening.
	The context is that Mr. Carlyle-Clarke is wanted by the US authorities in the state of Alabama on serious charges concerning the importation and possible distribution of marijuana. The accusations involve the smuggling into the US in 1986 and 1987 of several thousands pounds—in weight—of the drug. He is also alleged to have co-ordinated delivery and distribution of a further quantity of drugs in Alabama in 1988 and to have received payments then worth more than $1 million for those services. In other words, he is wanted for very serious offences. Government Members know that the Conservative party takes the issue of cannabis and marijuana very seriously indeed.
	Before proceeding any further, I should like to explain my specific difficulties with today's Adjournment debate, about which I wrote to Mr. Speaker. I copied the letter to the hon. Member for North Dorset and I hope that he will not mind me repeating some of the content for the House, which I believe is important.
	The difficulty arises from the present circumstances of the case. The applicable current resolution about sub judice matters was passed on 15 November 2001. It sets out in clear terms that a criminal or civil case should not be referred to in any motion, debate or question. However, extradition cases are slightly different from all other cases heard by our courts, because they involve both the courts and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in the decision-making process. An extradition case is not concluded until a final decision is made by my right hon. Friend, so in taking this decision, he is acting in a quasi-judicial role. He must weigh up the case for and against the making of an extradition order, taking into account any representations made to him.
	In the case of Mr Carlyle-Clarke, the matter is currently before the Secretary of State for consideration of fresh representations made on 15 February 2005 by his solicitors. So, while the matter is not strictly sub judice under the terms of the 2001 resolution, the case has not yet concluded. I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's decision and there remains the possibility of further legal proceedings in the form of an application for judicial review.
	In summary, I inquired of Mr. Speaker whether, in those circumstances, this debate should go ahead. He felt that it should, and I have accepted his decision. However, I can say very little publicly about the case until my right hon. Friend has taken his decision, and until that decision has been communicated to Mr Carlyle-Clarke. As I have assured the hon. Member for North Dorset, throughout the decision-making process, Home Office officials are maintaining appropriate contact with Mr. Carlyle-Clarke's legal representatives. I shall provide only a brief history of the case, about which the hon. Gentleman has already spoken, and restrict myself to a few general comments.
	As I have explained, the alleged offences go back 17 years. An arrest warrant was first granted against Mr. Carlyle-Clarke by the district court in Alabama in 1992. There are some issues about the time taken before the US issued a request to us for his arrest that I cannot, for reasons that I have already explained, enter into here. Under the terms of the Extradition Act 1989, he was provisionally arrested for extradition on 9 January 1998 and remanded on bail. That date of arrest is now quite some time ago, but I can assure the House that the case did move on in the interval.
	On 4 January 1999, Mr Carlyle-Clarke was committed at Bow Street to await the decision of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), the then Home Secretary, as to his return—a prima facie case having been found against him, based on documentary evidence and witness statements. He then applied for habeas corpus, but withdrew from that line of legal challenge on 10 November 1999.
	Under the Extradition Act 1989, it then fell to the Home Secretary to decide whether to make an order for Mr Carlyle-Clarke's return. Mr Carlyle-Clarke was advised through his solicitors that he had the right to make representations to my right hon. Friend against that surrender by 2 December 1999. Under the procedures of the Extradition Act 1989, in making such a decision on surrender, the Secretary of State has to take into account not only statutory restrictions on return, but, in exercising his discretion, any other reason why it would be wrong, unjust or oppressive to order return. That can involve a very wide range of matters indeed. The deadline for representations was subsequently extended by the agreement of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, and they were received from Mr. Carlyle-Clarke's solicitors on both 13 December 1999 and 1 February 2000. They covered a wide range of matters.
	Considerable inquiries were then made of the US authorities, followed by a very careful consideration of the representations, including a review of the case law cited in them. In due course, my predecessor as Minister with responsibility for extradition, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), signed an order for surrender on behalf of the former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), on 3 July 2002. The period of two and half years may seem unduly long, but I am satisfied that the time taken was unprecedented neither under the terms of the extradition legislation that applied at the time, nor in the specific context of this matter.
	The solicitors then requested to be allowed to make further representations. That was agreed, given all thecircumstances of the case. Extensive further representations were received on a number of occasions, and further information from the US was also received before reconsideration of the case could be completed. In due course, on 27 November 2003, I confirmed the earlier decision to surrender made by my predecessor. I do not believe that the fact that I dealt with the matter at that time precludes me from dealing with it in future, when new information would allow me to make a fresh decision.
	In due course, the case came before the courts once again. On 26 November 2004, the High Court dismissed Mr. Carlyle-Clarke's application for judicial review. In giving judgment, Mr. Justice Pitchford considered all the arguments relating to delay in this case. Both Ministers and the courts had considered the case presented on behalf of Mr Carlyle-Clarke in appropriate depth, and at that stage had been satisfied that no injustice or breach of human rights would occur, notwithstanding the contentions advanced as to passage of time. No statute of limitations applies, and the charge is a serious one. The overall time spent since the arrest involves time allowed for Mr Carlyle-Clarke to make representations, as he is entitled to do, extensions granted by the Secretary of State to enable him to make those representations, and the time which has been needed for their due consideration.
	In terms of general questions about the passage of time precluding extradition, it may help if I quote from the judgment of Lord Justice Simon Brown in the case of Woodcock v. Government of New Zealand, cited at 2004/1/WLR1979. He said:
	"In my judgment, there can be no cut-off point beyond which extradition must inevitably be regarded as unjust or oppressive. It hardly needs me to point out that trial after 20 years or more is far from ideal. Sometimes, however, it may nevertheless be appropriate to extradite an accused for that purpose."
	The case has again come before the Home Secretary, and it would not be appropriate for me to go into further details, but I will just add that I have noted the comments from the hon. Member for North Dorset about the position of Mr Carlyle-Clarke's family. Extradition, by its nature—even more than other criminal proceedings—necessarily involves separation from loved ones. I recognise that, and such matters are taken into account
	There is one other matter that I must mention. The hon. Member for North Dorset and the solicitors representing Mr Carlyle-Clarke have both asked in recent weeks that specific papers in relation to the case should be disclosed to them. The hon. Gentleman repeated that request again this evening.
	The request is being considered under the freedom of information procedures, but questions to do with international relations require further analysis before we respond, which we are trying to do as quickly as possible. There is nothing sinister about that: it is simply a question of respecting legal confidences between states. I can assure the hon. Member for North Dorset that no information has been withheld that is prejudicial to his constituent's case, but I hope he will forgive me if I cannot comment at this time. However, I have written to him, and I also faxed a letter to his office yesterday to confirm that we have set a deadline of 14 April for reply. I hope that his staff have alerted him to that fax, and I assure him that receipt was confirmed.
	In passing, I note that the difficulties arising in this case, and the time that has elapsed while it has been processed through the Home Office and the courts, seem to me rather illustrative of why it was necessary to review extradition procedures. The Extradition Act 2003 has greatly rationalised the process, and placed most decision-making on extradition before our independent courts, where it rightly should be.
	I am well aware that certain current cases even under the new Act are controversial, and I do not intend to stray beyond the scope of this debate by discussing them. However, early indications are that the new procedures will, over the course of time, prove to be much quicker than those under the old Act. That will serve the interests of justice and the fight against international crime. By no means least, it will serve the interests of defendants facing the uncertainties of extradition proceedings, as they will still have appropriate protections available to them.
	In conclusion, I hope that what I have had to say will have been of some assistance to the hon. Member for North Dorset. It is our intention that the decision currently awaited in the case will be reached as quickly as is consistent with a proper and just consideration of the latest representations.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty four minutes past Six o'clock